nuclear-news

“New Generation” nuclear reactors – a selection of duds

The death of the Pebble Bed has considerable significance. Harvey Wasserman, 23 Sept 10, For nearly two decades reactor backers have counted it in the imaginary fleet of new generation reactors coming to save us. Its alleged bright future would make it just one of the many new nuclear technologies that would render solar and wind energy unnecessary. 

This anti-green arsenal has also included fast breeder reactors, which would magically create new fuel from used fuel. Canada’s heavy water CanDu. Thorium reactors, which would burn a radioactive element other than uranium. Fusion reactors, which would mimic the gargantuan power of the sun. The AP 1000, new from Westinghouse. The European (or Evolutionary) Power Reactor, new from France’s Areva. And a whole fleet of “Fourth Generation” designs which are unproven and often wildly impractical.

Like older proposed projects such as nuclear-powered aircraft, homes built of uranium and nuclear-tipped anti-ballistic missiles, all have run afoul of reality. None offer a realistic solution to the problems of waste or terrorism, not to mention cost, heat emissions and greenhouse gas production in all but the fission/fusion portion of the process. The first big breeder, Fermi I, nearly exploded in Monroe, Michigan, in 1966, threatening to irradiate the entire Great Lakes region. Today’s models are extremely dangerous, dirty and have been widely rejected outside France and Japan, where they barely operate.

Canada has been unable to find buyers for its CanDu design, and has put its own Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., up for sale. Thorium reactors are unproven, with no prototypes. Fusion reactors are periodically hyped and always “twenty years away.” The AP1000 and EPR face major regulatory, safety and financial hurdles.

Meanwhile a “Fourth Generation” of proposed reactors is theoretical and all over the map. As Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service puts it:

“The Pebble Bed has failed for the same reason all the other new reactor designs ultimately will fail: they are too expensive compared to the competition. Renewables and energy efficiency are cheap and getting cheaper; nuclear is expensive and getting more so.”

Sensing an unending march of hotly hyped but feeble headed new design failures, the US industry is now pushing hard to get its aging fleet—originally designed to operate 30 to 40 years—licensed to run for 60 to 80 years. But not one of 104 US reactors has a containment dome designed to withstand a serious jet crash. Reactor builders now say they’ll put stronger domes on the new models, but prefer not to discuss cost or logistical realities.

The Pebble Bed’s backers could not find private investors, and the South African government finally got tired of footing the bill. If/when that happens here—and the sooner the better—the Solartopian technologies of true green power and efficiency will finally get their day.

Then the “too cheap to meter” six-decade Peaceful Atom fantasy, with its fast breeding corps of failed new designs, can take its final rest in the very dead pebble bed.

September 24, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, technology | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear technology, reactors